quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Wouldn't be asking if someone has the "right" to "kill" the "living dead" start this with having to define: Morality, rights, what killin is and how it differs from death, and what exactly the role of a human is? Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved? If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power. When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God. Personally, I would say, based off of Army of Darkness, an organic mechanism going through the processes of controlled entropy over time would be living dead by its INability to "enjoy" life and thus a boomstick is a moral action to let them RIP.

So how many beers have you had before typing this?

___________________
1+1=10

I think drinking is wrong.

I just dont get how you can have a discussion about a God giving you a moral issue to decide about a person in a netherworld being "tormented" and not define any of the concepts. Makes for rather long winded and circular discussions if everyone has a different idea of what they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Morality,

that's basically the point of discussion, seeing everyone's different viewpoints on morality in effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax rights,

there's no need to define right, because it's obvious from the modified myth that you have been given the right.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax what killin is and how it differs from death,

untill the need arises i think we can avoid defining that, i don't see an obvious difference in relation to the question.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax and what exactly the role of a human is?

similiar to my responce about morality, just to a lesser extent. the reason we are not defining it is because we can question everything, and if we will, it's doubtful that we will ever reach the topic.
case in point: define a human's role, define a human, define a definition.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved?

to each his own view, un-'defineable'.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power.

appearently an 'omnipotent' but not omniscient being.
THE God is irrelavant.
A God is not necessarily moral imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God.

the being that gave it to you isn't THE God.

p.s
by limiting your God into working under the constraint of morality, you are negating his omnipotency on an even bigger level than the familiar logical paradoxes do.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

Hehe well, the omnipotence issue can be laid to rest kind of easily.

The whole "can God make a rock so big he cant lift it?" question can be answered with both yes or no and they both work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

descartes among others have already gone through all that.

PS Die

The omnipotence question is kinda interesting, but also doesn't make sense at the same time. Logically speaking:

1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve.

2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?"

Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense.

I don't know how many of you have taken classes on formal logic and proofs, but if your problem/question contradicts your assumption, this implies that your question doesn't make sense to being with.

Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The omnipotence question is kinda interesting, but also doesn't make sense at the same time. Logically speaking: 1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve. 2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?" Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense. I don't know how many of you have taken classes on formal logic and proofs, but if your problem/question contradicts your assumption, this implies that your question doesn't make sense to being with. Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic?

if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, atleast that's my take on this. Occ and Trancaholic, what are your views on this?

Well, my take is that this is exactly the kind of discussions that reinforce my belief that humans are unable to fathom the essence of superior beings. However, to be more precise:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Logically speaking: 1. You make the assumption that the being is omnipotent. I'll use the term God to refer to the omnipotent being for sake of convinienve. 2. Then you state the question "Could God create a stone so big that even he could not lift it?" Ok, now here's the problem with the question. It contradicts the assumption of god being omnipotent, therefore, the question doesn't make sense.

I *do* think that the question makes sense - the reasoning is pretty much like that of any other proof by contradiction: Setup the negation of your hypothesis as an assumption, and show that it leads to nonsense or self-contradiction. What I feel is the problem with the entire proof of God's lack of ability, is that the term "omnipotent" is so awfully badly defined. The excited atheist takes it as meaning "can do anything at all", whereas I would take it to mean "can do anything in this world". That is, God can do anything in this world - but there might be other worlds (including the realm where God himself resides) where there are things that God cannot do.
Now, let's look at things with this definition of "omnipotent":
We assume that

God is omnipotent
<=> God can do anything in this world
<=> it's a defining characteristic of this world that there is nothing that God cannot do
=> there can be no stone in this world that God cannot lift.

Thus, asking if God can create a stone he cannot lift, is like asking if he can create an object with two centers of gravity or an equation for a circle whose circumference is not 2r\pi. If this impossible object would somehow be put into this world, the world would no longer be this world - the rules of the game would have been changed. So the question certainly does makes sense, and the answer would be a solid "no". But that "admittance" does not make God non-omnipotent, according to the definition of omnipotence.
So the real question would be whether it makes a difference to you, as an inhabitant of this world, if God is limited when acting outside of this world.

Makes sense? At least it does in my formal brain - I don't think it would make a difference for a very religious man. Logical reasoning seldom does.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic? if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

Sorry, its not relevant to your thread, but Orbax posted it and I just had to discuss it. I'll keep it short and won't hijack your thread.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Makes sense? At least it does in my formal brain - I don't think it would make a difference for a very religious man. Logical reasoning seldom does.

With the exception of me ofcourse. (Am I religious? )

But yes, I agree with you especially on the defeniton of "omnipotent" and "God." It's not well defined at all. It hard to prove/disprove the existence of something if you can't even define it. Which is why one believes/disbelieves in the existence of God. Anyways, thanks for your input and I hope I didn't piss off Psy-T by going on a tangent.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and how does omnipotence bundled with morality faces formal logic? if god is necessarily moral, doesnt that put a huge constraint on his omnipotency?

To answer your questions:

You'll need to rephrase the first one. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there.

Well, if God is necessarily moral, I don't think that would put constraints on his omnipotency. God can still do whatever he wants. (Since I beleive in God), it's not my place to say this, but I suppose he chooses to act in a just manner? I'll make a simple analogy here. I find a wallet in my apartment complex. It has a 100 bucks in it plus a bunch of other stuff. I recognise the ID and it belongs to my neighbor. Now, I can eigther choose to keep it and buy a quater of bud , or return it to him. I choose to do the latter since it's the moral thing to do. It's not like I could keep it and get high for a few days, I chose not to. God, being God, doesn't have human weaknesses and therefore always acts justly, eventhough he can act unjustly if he chooses to. Or is that a contradcition in itself; to be necessarily moral and have free will?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z To answer your questions: You'll need to rephrase the first one. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there. Well, if God is necessarily moral, I don't think that would put constraints on his omnipotency. God can still do whatever he wants. (Since I beleive in God), it's not my place to say this, but I suppose he chooses to act in a just manner? I'll make a simple analogy here. I find a wallet in my apartment complex. It has a 100 bucks in it plus a bunch of other stuff. I recognise the ID and it belongs to my neighbor. Now, I can eigther choose to keep it and buy a quater of bud , or return it to him. I choose to do the latter since it's the moral thing to do. It's not like I could keep it and get high for a few days, I chose not to. God, being God, doesn't have human weaknesses and therefore always acts justly, eventhough he can act unjustly if he chooses to. Or is that a contradcition in itself; to be necessarily moral and have free will?

the second question is basically the first rephrased.


i think it is a contradiction in itself.
i'm not sure how to elaborate on that.

and dont worry about hijacking the thread, it would have probably died otherwise.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)